Jung v. State
This text of 305 S.W.3d 497 (Jung v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
ORDER
Joseph Michael Jung (Movant) appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of the County of St. Charles denying his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Movant asserts that the motion court clearly erred in denying his claim that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel by withdrawing a motion to suppress evidence. We affirm.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the motion court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision.
We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
305 S.W.3d 497, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 239, 2010 WL 711405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jung-v-state-moctapp-2010.